Powell Preaches Restraint, Reason

by Wendy McElroy

Secretary of State Colin Powell is both the most prominent military leader
in the Bush administration and its loudest voice for restraint in the new
"war."

The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs a critic of "pseudo-
policy"  policy created by the media or in response to oscillating public
opinion. When polled, the man-on-the-street seems to favor military action
against Afghanistan or other states that "sponsor" terrorism. However,
Powell argues for first exhausting other means of resolution, such as
exploring diplomatic options, before going ahead with military intervention.
He has consistently urged the use of "overwhelming force" only after clear
political objectives and an exit strategy have been established.

No one knows what will happen in the coming weeks or months in the War on
Terrorism. At the moment, voices of restraint do seem to dominate the
debate. But this situation may be similar to what history calls the "phony
war"  the period of relative military inaction in Europe that followed the
declaration of World War II in September, 1939 through May, 1940. This was
the calm before a five-year storm.

Today, a window of opportunity remains open for reflection and debate on the
looming war.

My last FOXNews.com column  which called for such discussion and
questioning  prompted an unprecedented flood of e-mail. The most
interesting responses came from servicemen who strongly supported restraint
both militarily and domestically. These servicemen were reluctant to suspend
civil liberties in exchange for security policies to ensure safety.

R.J., a retired veteran who served in the Navy for 21 years, described both
his horror at the events of Sept. 11 and his determination to fight against
the evil of terrorism. However, he said he had "very grave reservations"
about measures being taken in the name of "safety and security." He
particularly objected to banning knives at airports, calling it an
"overreaction" to a tragedy that was actually the fault of "poor
intelligence."

He referred to the possibility of having citizens carry national ID cards 
a solution some have suggested  as being "against everything I believed and
fought for while I was in the military." He ended his e-mail by quoting
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who trade essential liberties for temporary safety
deserve neither safety nor liberty."

Another reader, C.K., serves in the U.S. Marine Corps reserve and lost a
family member in the World Trade Center attack. "From the U.S. Civil War to
World War II," he wrote, "war has destroyed civil liberties in this country
with greater justifications of federal power."

He also worried about the definition of a terrorist, which politics may
expand to include anyone opposed to state intrusion. Instead of suspending
civil liberties, C.K. suggested "the promotion of complete property rights,"
including the right to gun ownership. That way, "airliners can defend their
own planes, utilities can defend their own water and power supplies and
parents can defend their own families."

In foreign policy, C.K. argued for free trade with all nations, including
Iran, Iraq and Cuba. "Free trade and property rights are what gave this
nation strength, not democracy (besides, the U.S. is a republic)." As for
war, should it become necessary, he quoted Chinese military master Sun Tzu's
The Art of War, which has been called the oldest military treatise in the
world: "... the greatest victory is victory without bloodshed." C.K. urged
proponents of peace to use the book as a manual against "the improper use of
force."

M.M., a Vietnam vet who counts three other veterans of that war in his
family, gave a politically sophisticated analysis of why "we need to
thoroughly examine what we mean by patriotism, nationalist, sovereignty,
justice, rule-of-law and transnational brand loyalty in this emerging
context of global capitalism."

He expressed pointed concern that, for some people, war is purely a matter
of profit. He wanted to know how the U.S. was to determine and prevent "war
profiteering ... by those who trade their citizenship for serious economic
advantage as cavalierly as they trade their stock portfolios, with the
benefit of insider information ... naturally. This slime needs to be exposed
as much as the terrorists' network."

M.M. wrote from the viewpoint of experience, having witnessed corruption.

It is not uncommon for military personnel to show more prudence regarding
warfare than politicians, government officials or the general public. They
understand the complexities of warfare because they have experienced it
firsthand. They have been trained to stay calm under pressure and to act on
the assessment of a given situation rather than on emotion.

Perhaps the focus upon assessing the situation and determining the facts of
the attack is what led to the reported tension between Powell and others in
the Bush administration over whether to release evidence against bin Laden
to the public and to the nations whose support the U.S. has solicited. On
Sept. 23, Powell told NBC's Meet the Press, "I think in the near future, we
will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite
clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack." On Sept. 24,
Bush went out of his way to, according to the Associated Press, "roll back
reports" that the case against bin Laden would be released. That same day,
Powell referred to the evidence as being mostly "classified."

The military's emphasis on facts, consequences and the art of the possible
may be largely responsible for the slowly spreading sanity of restraint.